I ask this merely out of curiosity, but is
the same thing as actually doing the damage? ISTM that the other guy did the damage. Tuckerfan, just gave consent.
If I drive you to a store so you can rob it, I, too, am charged w/ ‘armed robbery’ (directly) even if I stayed in the car. How would this be different? **TUcker ** as the employee stood by and watched/ failed to prevent some one from popping a lock, and then rummaged around in the locked area. The authorities have apparently declined to prosecute, however, the standard of proof is less in civil cases.
The distinction that I would draw is one of involvement. Driving to the store would make one an active participant. If I were a customer in the store and the robber asked for my consent, I’d give it to them and I wouldn’t expect to be prosecuted for it. To me, Tuckerfan falls in between these two extremes.
As far as the civil case is concerned, I would guess that if he can’t afford a lawyer to defend against a criminal case, he is pretty much judgement proof as was mentioned above.
the employee at a store who’s being robbed certainly doesn’t have any (criminal) responsability. however, how can the employee not be considered involved when there’s no coercion (ie no gun to their head, or any other apparent means of coercion) and they stand by willfully allowing a ‘customer’ access to an obviously ‘limited access’ area (obvious because there was a lock, even more in this case since the employee involved didn’t even have a key. ) in one setting I work in, there’s a ‘public’ area, a ‘non public’ area and a ‘limited access’ area. Members of the public are allowed in teh public area, must be escorted in teh non public area, and you better believe I"d be in trouble if I stood by and let some one force a lock on a locked area.
I agree that in practical terms, Tucker does seem to be judgement proof on this matter.
Not according to Tuckerfan’s description. They “glanced around” the office area after popping the lock. No one entered, no one “rummaged.” It still isn’t clear who stole the items, when they were stolen or frankly if the items existed in the first place. Back on page one TF said something about being shown two year old inventory sheets. No way I’d accept that as proof that the items were still in the office two years later.
I believe that you might be in trouble with your boss, but not the police.
bolding added. Issue was “damage done” employee stood by and allowed some one else to damage the property. the theft of the property (alledged) is another issue and I agree, there’s a lack of records. however, as a parenthetical note, when my office was burgled, I wasn’t asked for an inventory of items prior to the theft, I was asked for a description of what was missing (IOW, I wasn’t asked to prove that the items were there the day before)
KRM:
emphasis added.
“letting” some one damage property could easily be seen as an accessory criminally as well as in civil procedings, IME.
Agreed. It seemed ike you were saying TF stood there while the guy who popped the lock went through the office.
Normally I wouldn’t question someone’s saying that such-and-such items were stolen, but if the guy were making noise like he was going to have me arrested and/or sued for their loss I’d damn well insist that he could prove that every single item he said was missing actually existed and had been in the office.
sorry for the misunderstanding
agreed.
Tuckerfan,
I am very, very glad to hear this.
Bogus criminal prosecutions suck, and resulting convictions really suck on your record.
Don’t sweat the civil lawsuit. Once your boss starts pricing lawyers, he’s likely to change his mind about that.
Can it be considered consent if it wasn’t Tucker’s consent to give. The guy that popped the lock asked the wrong guy and is therefore entirely at fault.
Oh, I doubt that. He’s got one on retainer as he get’s sued fairly regularly (about once a month) and he’s a fairly petty and vindictive kind of guy.
Forgive me if this has already been asked, but is there anyway you can lay the blame on Pete Puma?
Sadly, no.
TF: Just spent the always productive hours right after lunch reading about your ongoing troubles. Condolences on the feline front (my childhood cat Watermelon got eaten by a coyote out of our backyard—trauma-fest) and the possible lawsuit. I, for one, am curious to see how it plays out and am happy to hear the worst is over. Not that a civil suit is a reason for pinatas, but still…
Retainer doesn’t mean “works free”.
If you’ve got assets to go after, vindictiveness is a reason to pursue you in civil court.
If you’re legitimately judgement-proof, all he’ll do is enrich his lawyer by suing you, NOT impoverish you.
Tuckerfan- I am very, very pleased to hear you have passed the first hurtle. It is my fondest hope that if the police didn’t see enough to pursue then neither will the on-tap attorney.
Good luck TF